If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

His refusing to cater a particular event only matters, because of his stated reason. It was specifically their orientation that caused his denial of service. He could refuse to cater an event on soooo many other grounds. He could have said it was any other reason, but he didn't. By refusing to serve gay weddings, he was refusing to serve them, because of their sexuality. You can't separate the person from the event they are hosting like that. A planned event is a representation of either the people planning it or the people intended to attend it.

That's what I was looking for. That's my opinion now. Done.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

Intoxicated me really likes these post appreciation things. Sober me has never noticed them, not one single time. Also, I feel you on using this board to form opinions Richard, do you remember that conversation a while back about why incest should/should not be illegal? I still have almost no opinion on the death penalty.

do you remember that conversation a while back about why incest should/should not be illegal? I still have almost no opinion on the death penalty.

Actually, no. I should look it up some time.

I feel very strongly about the death penalty. I feel strongly about those in favour of it and I feel strongly about those who oppose it. Unfortunately I feel strongly that they both make excellent points. Recently I've been experimenting with sort of a jedi-hippy philosophy where I preach love and compassion above all else. A real fellowship of man thing. So I guess currently I'd support giving murderers actual life sentences instead of death. I'd treat them well, make sure all their basic human needs were met and give them access to therapists and education should they wish to reform. But I'd never, ever let them out.

I really quite enjoy the Iranian system though. Essentially it is up to the family of the victim whether to seek retaliation (execution) or accept financial compensation. I feel like there is something really attractive about this on quite a primal level. Psychologically it restores power to the victim's families and I've always imagined one of the worst things about having a loved one murdered would be the sense of utter powerlessness and impotent rage. I suspect being given control over the fate of the murderer would really help with the healing process. Unfortunately I would imagine poor families would feel more pressure to "forgive" the murderer and take the financial compensation but hey, I still like that they get a choice. The Iranian system is horrifically sexist however. Women are only worth half as much as men when taking the financial compensation. Also, girls as young as 9 can be executed while boys can't be executed until they are 15. So yeah, just to be clear, I don't enjoy that part. But the whole choice bit is quite interesting. If I were to support the death penalty I would be tempted to advocate this sort of system.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

I happily accepted a long time ago that I don't know everything and there's no point pretending that I do. Pretending to somehow be smarter or wiser than I am might impress some people but that's worthless if it's a lie. I would rather be genuinely mundane than impressively false. By openly acknowledging that I can be ignorant, misguided or flat-out wrong I stand a chance of actually bettering myself. Even today, with the BBS in its current dilapidated state, I love that there are several people here I respect and know I can learn from. It's a pretty great think-tank and I'm gratified to be a part of it. See, this warmth and appreciation is an example of the shit I just can't seem to shake off anymore. I'm stuck being some kind of jedi-hippy

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

Why not? I totally approve of suing. The system needs to be tested. Either this was illegal discrimination or it wasn't and the system needed to give a ruling on that. I'm not entirely sure yet that I agree with the ruling (I want to, I just haven't been convinced) but I'm glad there has been a ruling.

I see no reason to sue here except out of selfishness. The guy did something illegal, and there are legal repercussions in place for such an event. Beyond that, I'd write in to some local papers, spread the word, hurt his business. I believe in suing when you are trying to recover what you've lost; in this case, this couple was a little hurt (if they claim this caused them "emotional trauma" or anything, that's a load of BS), and there's nothing to recover. It's discrimination what this man did, but it's also rather petty. Suing over it... well, I just don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by _Lost_

Once again, I bring the point of replacing "gay" with any other identifier that is protected by anti-discrimination laws. If he refused to do cakes for Muslim weddings, because their religion violates his, it is the same type of discrimination.

Right. And there'd be huge backlash if a business chose to not serve Christians or something.

Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black

I really quite enjoy the Iranian system though. Essentially it is up to the family of the victim whether to seek retaliation (execution) or accept financial compensation. I feel like there is something really attractive about this on quite a primal level. Psychologically it restores power to the victim's families and I've always imagined one of the worst things about having a loved one murdered would be the sense of utter powerlessness and impotent rage. I suspect being given control over the fate of the murderer would really help with the healing process. Unfortunately I would imagine poor families would feel more pressure to "forgive" the murderer and take the financial compensation but hey, I still like that they get a choice. The Iranian system is horrifically sexist however. Women are only worth half as much as men when taking the financial compensation. Also, girls as young as 9 can be executed while boys can't be executed until they are 15. So yeah, just to be clear, I don't enjoy that part. But the whole choice bit is quite interesting. If I were to support the death penalty I would be tempted to advocate this sort of system.

Interesting... question, though. What if a convicted criminal had killed multiple people? I wonder if there has to be a consensus? Or is it majority?

Llamas, I might agree with you, if they were suing for damages. They only filed a civil complaint against the owner to stop him from turning away future gay couples. I've not seen anything about them wanting money from this guy. If you look back on earlier articles about this, they all say that the couple, with help from the ACLU, filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission to put a stop to the discrimination.

PIB, glad I could help.

Last edited by _Lost_; 06-01-2014 at 12:14 PM.

Originally Posted by Little_Miss_1565

Or what? Or you'll leave as soon as someone returns your rudeness and delete all your posts? I'm so scared.

Llamas, I might agree with you, if they were suing for damages. They only filed a civil complaint against the owner to stop him from turning away future gay couples. I've not seen anything about them wanting money from this guy. If you look back on earlier articles about this, they all say that the couple, with help from the ACLU, filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission to put a stop to the discrimination.

PIB, glad I could help.

Ahh, my mistake. In this case, I have no objection to the lawsuit, then.

I think the problem here, as Lost said, is that the baker wanted to make a point on that discrimination.

Personnally, I would have told him to say he refused because the wedding was a fraud according to Colorado laws and he could damage his reputation by doing "fake" wedding cakes.

That wouldn't have worked though because when a guy who discriminates others isn't even intelligent enough to lie about it, you can't do anything to help...

Edit : Llamas, I don't see why it wouldn't have been justified to sue just for damages. These guys basically were refused because of who they are AND they had to seek someone else to make a cake for an event clearly important and expensive to them. Clearly, they couldn't ask for millions but I don't see what's wrong with it. There's no better way to make a person better than to make him pay when he's an asshole.